Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PamW

(1,825 posts)
1. and "VERY POOR" design.
Sat Feb 25, 2012, 03:46 PM
Feb 2012

When the Solyndra application for financial aid was submitted to DOE, the design of the Solyndra system was evaluated by DOE scientists who concluded that it was a "very poor design".

The Solyndra design wrapped thin-film solar cells around cylindrical bars. The bars in turn were assembled into panels like the bars on a jail cell except with much closer spaced bars. This is NOT a very good design.

Think about if you were designing a solar farm, and how you would place your heliostats with the solar panels. You would line them up to follow the sun. If they were not movable, you would place them facing south in the northern hemisphere; because that is the primary direction of the sun.

Would you ever arrange your fixed heliostats in a circle; such that many were facing north, and east and west; in addition to those facing south? NO - that would be a TERRIBLE arrangement for solar panels. Why have solar panels facing north in the northern hemisphere?

Well that's what the Solyndra design did. With its circular design, at any given moment, most of its solar cell area was facing any way EXCEPT at the Sun. DOE scientists identified this extremely poor design aspect of the Solyndra design and reccomended to DOE NOT to fund Solyndra.

However, Solyndra hired a law firm that employed the wife of a very high ranking DOE official who has now resigned. Solyndra got their money in spite of the warning that the DOE's scientists sounded. The rest is history.

PamW

and "VERY POOR" design. PamW Feb 2012 #1
I have never seen anyone get so many things so wrong so consistently. kristopher Feb 2012 #4
My understanding is that both are indeed true ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2012 #5
Support your "understanding" kristopher Feb 2012 #6
For Heaven's sake.... PamW Feb 2012 #7
Your description is inapt and your hyperbole is inept. kristopher Feb 2012 #9
Post removed Post removed Feb 2012 #11
For what it's worth caraher Feb 2012 #12
Agreed. PamW Feb 2012 #13
I've warned you. PamW Feb 2012 #8
You need to stop this Pam. kristopher Feb 2012 #10
Post removed Post removed Feb 2012 #14
What horseshit jpak Feb 2012 #15
So let me get this straight caraher Feb 2012 #16
Wow! That's one for the history books! bananas Feb 2012 #17
No solar for you jpak Feb 2012 #18
Interesting spin on the data, sounds like WSJ viewpoint saras Feb 2012 #2
Two current solar projects on the Carrizo Plain - pinto Feb 2012 #3
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Why Did Leading Solar Pan...»Reply #1